Evangelical Pastor Mark Darling Resigns Over Sexual Misconduct Allegations

pastor mark darlingMark Darling, pastor of Evergreen Church in Bloomington, Minnesota — a multi-campus megachurch — recently resigned over allegations of sexual misconduct. The church commissioned an independent investigation into the allegations against Darling. While the church has not made the results of this investigation public, it did rescind Darling’s ordination.

According to Fox-9 News, the investigators concluded that Darling engaged in what the church calls “inappropriate conduct.”  The investigation also revealed that assistant pastor Mark Bowen was aware seventeen years ago of at least two other women who had similar concerns about Darling, but failed to inform the church board of their allegations. Bowen was forced to give up his seat on the board of trustees. He remains part of the church’s pastoral staff.

The woman at the center of this scandal is Suzanne van Dyck, a former church employee. Van Dyck’s husbands was also on Evergreen’s pastoral staff. You can read van Dyck’s compelling, heartbreaking story here.

Evergreen Church released a public statement regarding the investigation and its findings. It’s long and somewhat convoluted, but you can read it here. The statement says, in part:

Suzanne van Dyck’s individual allegations of sexual abuse by definition could not be substantiated.”

“While the investigation revealed that some pastors of Evergreen Church had seen the phrase ‘emotional sexual abuse’ prior to Suzanne van Dyck’s post on an online forum on January 24, 2018, the EC BOT first learned of Suzanne van Dyck’s specific allegation of physical sexual abuse by Mark Darling from a post she made on an online forum on January 24, 2018.”

“A second draft of this letter was shared with Mark Darling, Mark Bowen, Brent Knox, Doug Patterson, and John van Dyck where the phrase ‘emotional sexual abuse’ was changed to ‘inappropriate sexual boundaries’”.

“In 2001, Mark Bowen was also aware of at least two other women who had concerns similar to Suzanne van Dyck’s about Mark Darling’s conduct as a pastor (inappropriate conversations of a sexual nature). (In 2001, apart from Mark Bowen (Chair of the EC BOT), the other members of the EC BOT were not aware of the concerns raised by Suzanne van Dyck and these other women regarding Mark Darling’s conduct and were not informed of the concerns.”

“From the investigator’s report ‘ECC failed to take appropriate action in response to misconduct allegations.’”

“In 2001, the four Evergreen pastors, Mark Bowen, Brent Knox, Doug Patterson and John van Dyck made aware of Susan van Dyck’s concerns about Mark Darling’s conduct acknowledged those concerns, and engaged with Mark Darling in a process  (Matthew 18) over the course of several months in a good faith effort to address her concerns, but failed to follow through and implement appropriate corrective action regarding Mark Darling’s conduct (conduct that failed to meet some of the standards spelled out in Titus 1:6-9 See Note C below).”

“From the investigator’s report: ‘ECC has no policies or procedures specific to reporting or receiving discipline’ for the misconduct attributed to Mark Darling.”

“The investigator concluded this severance agreement did not constitute ‘hush money’ or an attempt to cover up the allegations Suzanne van Dyck made in 2001.”

“From the Investigator’s report “the investigation does support the fact that Mark Darling, while holding a position of authority, engaged in inappropriate conduct…’Specifically, this conduct included spending time alone with women in private settings and inappropriate conversations with women of a sexual nature.’”

“The EC BOT rescinds Mark Darling’s ordination. He will not regain his status as an ordained pastor nor return from leave until the EC BOT and an outside third-party, acting on behalf of EC BOT, determine that he is ready to do so.”

“The church has been informed that Mark Darling has resigned.”  “Mark Bowen will step down as EC BOT chair.”

“Based on the investigation findings, the EC BOT, in unanimous agreement, will participate in and oversee the development and implementation of policies and organizational deficiencies revealed in the investigation.”

“The EC BOT will retain Ms. Harris’ law firm, Olgetree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., to assist with the development of the appropriate policies and reporting procedures.”

“The EC BOT with third-party assistance will work with the pastors to develop procedures to address pastoral accountability, performance, improvement planning and discipline.”

“The EC BOT with third party assistance will work with the pastors to develop a ‘grievance process’ and specific ways we can further open communications and improve the culture of safety in our church”

print

Subscribe to the Daily Post Digest!

Sign up now and receive an email every day containing the new posts for that day.

I agree to have my personal information transfered to MailChimp ( more information )

I will never give away, trade or sell your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Powered by Optin Forms

20 Comments

  1. maura

    these guys just cannot keep it in their pants! what is that demandment thing about adultery?

    Reply
  2. Lindsey

    To be clear, there were allegations of sexual abuse, cover-up, and hush money. All of those were found to be not true. The investigator’s opinion was that inappropriate conversations happened over 17 years ago. “News” articles like this are the reason for his resignation–he didn’t want to put his family through all of this mess with the media. Please stop trying to ruin lives, by spreading gossip and slander.

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      I published what the news report stated. If you have FACTS/EVIDENCE that suggests that the news report is materially false, please provided them and I will gladly add them to this story. If not, all you have is an opinion. I always want readers to have as much information as possible, but saying the victim is lying and HE DIDN’T DO IT adds nothing to the story unless you have evidence for your claims. If you do, please email it to me via the contact form.

      Reply
      1. Lindsey

        Here’s the summary of the report: http://www.evergreenchurch.com/update/

        They go point by point under the section called “What the Investigator Reported.” The claims of physical sexual abuse, and other claims made before the investigation took place were all found to not be substantiated. The thing that arose from the investigation that she believes did happen was inappropriate conversations, which is not really news-worthy.

        Reply
        1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

          I provided a link to this “report” in the post. I have read it (as have many readers of this blog). The report says, and I quote, COULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIATED, not as you say “not to be substantiated.” Words matter. All this means is that the investigator could not verify the woman’s allegation of sexual abuse. Since there is no physical evidence for or corroborating testimony, what’s left is her allegation and Darling’s denial.

          And let’s not forget, according to the report, that the assistant pastor knew of other women who had made allegations against Darling and did nothing. Congregants should be demanding his ass be fired. Instead, he received a slap on the wrist, and is allowed to continue pastoring. This very fact alone tells me much about the church’s leadership.

          Let me be clear, I am very much pro-victim, pro-woman. I have published almost 500 of these kind of stories. One thing I have learned is that grown women rarely — I mean as rare as a dodo bird — make substantially false allegations. There’s too much at risk for them to do so. Who in their right mind would open themselves up to public scrutiny and denial from blind church members? It almost never happens. If you want to live in the realm of almost, so be it, but I am of the opinion that Darling, at the very least, was a creep; that he used his position of authority to, again, at the very least, act inappropriately towards at least three women. If you are fine with such behavior from a so-called man of God, that’s on you. I, for one, intend to stand with victims of sexual abuse and other clergy misconduct.

          I am also left with the fact that Darling resigned rather than fight to clear his name. Most preachers value their reputations, so I am quite surprised that he didn’t attempt to clear his name. If, as you say, these allegations are patently false, then Darling has grounds to sue the woman. Yet, he quietly goes into the night. Why is that? I can tell you this, based on my experience writing on clergy misconduct and talking privately with countless victims, that when offenders quickly exit stage left it is almost always because they don’t want further scrutiny. Whatever their excuses might be, these pastors don’t want people poking around their lives looking for other accusers or victims. Why? Sometimes, what they are being accused of is nothing compared to what lies buried in the dark secrets of the past. I am not saying this is the case with Darling, but neither of us know the man well enough to make any sort of statement about how he lives his life. All we have before us now is a woman’s allegations (which I find compelling), a pastor’s denial, and a lawyer’s inability to find evidence to corroborate the woman’s claims. I get why you want to side with Darling, but I hope you will understand why I can’t stand with you on this issue. If you at some later date hear of publicly available reports that add a different light on this story, please let me know and I will gladly amend this post.

          Thank you.

          Bruce Gerencser

          Reply
          1. GeoffT

            To require absolute proof of allegations in the types of circumstance referred to, especially after the passage of so much time, is patently unreasonable. It would require something like the Jehovahs Witness ‘two witness’ rule; and if there were witnesses it wouldn’t happen in the first place.

            It seems pretty clear that the church doesn’t believe the guy.

          2. Lindsey

            I have known him and his family for 15 years. Many kids of pastors leave the church, never to look back, because they live with their parents, and can tell if what is said publicly is true at home, and they can see the hypocrisy. These adult kids know their parents well, and know their dad to be a truthful, upstanding guy, who would never do anything to hurt their mother, his wife of many years (which would include inappropriate behavior with other women). They support him 100%. They, along with their spouses and kids, have been part of the church for many, many years. His kids used to babysit for the accuser, after the time she claims these things happened. Mark performed their wedding ceremony, again, after the time-frame covered in the allegations. The accuser’s husband was a co-pastor with Mark. These things, among others just don’t go with the story she’s been telling all over the internet and TV.

            I heard that Mark will be posting his resignation letter online in the future. You can see for yourself that it says he doesn’t want to put his family through this mess anymore. It is taking a huge toll on their health, especially his wife.

            And to the guy who replied to this comment before me, the church does not believe that the accusations were true. If they did, they would not have given him a path back to his position of pastor, but they did. He just chose to be done with it instead. Not done with God, not done with ministry.

          3. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

            No child knows their parents so well that they can say with certainty whether or not Mom or Dad did something. Again, wanting something to be true doesn’t make it so. The same could be said for congregants who think they “know” their pastors. How well do they really know them? Were they a mouse in the house that watched everything that went on? Did they ride in the cars of their pastors everywhere they went? Surely, you can see how irrational your claims are, and perhaps you are seeing what you want to see because you have a vested interest in Darling not only being a man of God, but also YOUR pastor, teacher, leader, and confidante. Pastors reveal to congregants what they want them to see. That’s part of the game. There’s no such thing as total transparency, openness, honesty, not in church or anywhere else for that matter.

            I am sure these accusations have taken a toll on his family, and that’s unfortunate. But, even if you take a minimalist approach to these accusations, Darling is guilty of being way too friendly with female congregants and talking with them in ways that were inappropriate. That you minimize his behavior, and say it is not being worthy of discussion is troubling. I don’t know about your husband, but another man talking inappropriately about sex with my wife would be a BIG problem, even more so if the offender was a pastor.

            I don’t intend to go back and forth with you on this matter. Our views of Darling’s alleged behaviors are irreconcilable. If and when you have public information contrary to what is published in this post, I will be glad to add it or write a new post. Until then, there’s nothing more I have to say on this matter.

  3. Lindsey

    I think you can definitely tell how a parent has raised their children, based on the actions of the children. And I think that the children do have more insight into their parents’ lives than people outside the home.

    I believe the conversations were taken out of context. People can twist just about any conversation. My husband trusts all of our pastors, and any conversations they have with me.

    One last point I’d like to add is that there was only one investigator. I believe that if more than one conducted the same investigation, there would be differing results. It wasn’t my decision to pick one investigator–that was the board’s decision. I have seen firsthand how some investigators operate, and have seen that the opinion of one investigator does not always align with what a jury of 12 decides. You can walk into any courtroom, watch a trial, and see that for yourself.

    And I guess so much for innocent until proven guilty, or even innocent even after proven not guilty, if you’re going to continue to insist that accusations of alleged behaviors constitute guilt. That’s the way of media. I was just hoping that my comments would make you think, give you a different perspective, have some empathy for others. Why the obsession with judging people you don’t know? You don’t have to answer.

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      Investigators do not have the powers law enforcement have, so people don’t have to talk to investigators, and they can, without penalty, lie. If this was a criminal matter, I suspect you and I would be having a different conversation.

      I don’t believe I have ever said Darling is guilty. I have given my personal opinion based on the evidence at hand. I have also appealed to my experience in writing about hundreds of cases involving clergy misconduct, along with a decade of behind the scenes conversations with victims. You have ignored everything I have shared with you, choosing instead to repeatedly say that Darling couldn’t have done these things because he’s a great guy. Your naivete shows in your comments. Consider Bob Gray, the former pastor of Trinity Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Florida. Trinity was a megachurch, and at one time was considered one of the largest churches in the country. Gray was a charismatic, powerful preacher of the Bible. Thousands of people were saved under his ministry. He traveled the country preaching conferences and special meetings. I heard him preach numerous times. A great guy. Yet, for fifty years he was was a pedophile. He may have been a great guy, but he was also a sexual predator. I could give you numerous stories of similar substance. Recently, the revered Bill Hybels was accused of sexual misconduct, including allegations similar to those levied against Darling. Everyone, including Hybels, denied the allegations. A great guy, his supporters and admirers said. Yet, we now know this great guy was not so great after all; that the allegations against him were substantially true.

      I am a writer who primarily writes about Evangelical Christianity. Bringing light to that which is done in secret by pastors who don’t practice what they preach is part of my job. These stories often quickly fade into the darkness of the internet. News sites often put older stories behind paywalls. This site, then, is a place where these stories will exist in perpetuity. As a victim advocate, it is the least I can do for those who have been misused, abused, and taken advantage of by churches, pastors, and church leaders. I make no apology for doing so. Yes, it is regrettable that there is collateral damage, often wives and children. This is why I don’t mention the names of spouses or children or use family photographs. I have empathy for Darling’s family, but I have the same empathy for the woman making the allegations against Darling (and the other women you repeatedly have ignored in your defense of Darling). It’s possible to do both.

      If you had bothered to actually pay attention to my writing and investigated the various subjects I write about, you would have learned that these stories are a very small part of the work I do. Sure, they generate a lot of attention, but my focus is on helping people escape the pernicious grip of Evangelical Christianity.

      I wish you well Lindsey. I believe I have, to the best of my ability, explained my motivations for writing these stories. As I stated previously, I don’t intend to go back and forth with you. I thought you deserved an answer, even though you passive-aggressively said, “you don’t have to answer.”

      Bruce Gerencser

      Reply
      1. Lindsey

        First, I want to apologize that you thought my comment was passive-aggressive. I never meant it to be. I didn’t mean to direct it directly at you, but in general, was saying that I think the media is unfair in how it judges. I’m not here to start fights. I read your rules, and I think I’ve been respecting them. Generally, I’m not a rule-breaker. 🙂

        And I do see that you write about more things, but those things don’t add to the negativity about someone important to me and my family, and even if I disagree, I would not have the time to comment on every blog on the internet that I disagree with. I chose this one, because I can see that you’re a real person, and not some large organization, and I was hoping to just share a little of the other side. I see you have health struggles, so I know you can understand how those are affected by stress, and I hoped that sharing about the health struggles of Mark’s family throughout this whole thing may make you consider that.

        As far as being a “great guy,” courtrooms usually have character witnesses as part of a trial. This whole thing right now is trial by the media, and I hoped to share a little bit about what I see in his life. I can’t comment on the character of the guys you mention, as I do not know them. I’d also like to point out that we are not a “mega-church,” like it says all over the internet. We have multiple locations, which gives us a large number of members/attendees among five locations, but the location I’m at has about 300 regular attendees (200 adults, 100 kids). It’s not so large that someone can hide who they are–we know each other, and what is going on in each other’s lives.

        Thank you for sharing the link to the new website for Mark below. That will give some really good character witness testimony. 🙂 He also has a website with over 30 years of his teachings, but I won’t put the link here, as I think it is probably against your rules (I think I remember something about that).

        Reply
  4. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

    *sigh* the fans of Mark Darling have started a fan page https://pastormarkdarling.com/ *sigh*

    Reply
  5. Anonymous

    Bruce, as a child of the GCM movement mark was involved.in, let me just say you are spot on in your responses. I’m one of the children who left and never looked back, and it’s because of the hypocrisy of guys like mark.

    Reply
  6. Rebel GW

    Well, if you are looking at children to reflect on Mark Darling, take a look at his son’s intimidation of women, victims, and those who support victims.

    The following are all quotes from a former member forum, linked here: http://forum.gcmwarning.com/general-discussion/evergreen-should-read-this-and-take-note/msg19792/#msg19792 Make sure to keep reading until you get to the accusations of “spiritual masturbation.”

    Keep in mind that Jeromy, an ECC staff member and worship leader, said these things about the victims and those who support them:

    To Huldah: “You’ve relentlessly hounded my father and my churches and this movement. You DID force me here when you embraced and spread a lie. Show me the decency of READING the entire letter, not skimming it (otherwise proving you’re terrified of the truth).”

    To Me: “You want what most of the other regular users on this forum have wanted for years: the humiliation of our churches.”

    To GodIsFaithful: “I’m sure Jesus and Paul and any number of other godly men may have appeared that way at times – you apparently haven’t spent enough time in the Word as I’m only trying to model their behavior.”

    To Boggs: “This entire website stands as a billboard for the the loveless Christian life”

    To g_prince: “I am however beginning to wonder how many pastors have been spiritually abused by their former congregants…”

    On why he can violate the rules of the forum and out members: “First of all I outed a two people. Chris and Jason. Secondly, I do not recognize the owners of this website or this website itself as having any Authority in my life, Ergo I dont recognize the rules they set out. ”

    To me: “And for the record, when you disagree with a public figure – NO ONE EVEN NEEDS TO KNOW. The fact that you think your opinion about a pastor or politician, posted on a website, is valuable to the world is the height of hubris. You’ve never run a church and don’t have the first idea how to. Leaving me to conclude that the only reason you continue posting on this website is for your own personal validation and self gratitude. In fact, since everyone on this site seems so interested in the latest spiritual topics and terms, let me introduce a new one here: spiritual masturbation.”

    About Suzanne making up the story: “I KNOW no names have been submitted because the evidence points exclusively to Suzanne making all of the victims up. ”

    About investigation the character of an alleged victim AND HER HUSBAND: “And for the record, this investigator is not only digging deep into my father’s life, she’s digging deep into John and Suzanne’s.”

    To the group: “Since there is no Biblical basis for running a site like this I can safely assume that most users on here are either grossly ignorant or are not real Christians at all. You guys could all be out volunteering, preaching the Gospel, saving souls, doing anything other than posting here over and over again, spiritually masturbating each other in an effort to validate your self worth and your knowledge, while perpetuating (or silently approving of) disgusting lies about my father.”

    To me: “Linda, disagreeing isn’t hate. Even I know that. You’ve spent more time on this website than you ever spent in a GCC church or listening to my father speak. You have reserved much of your ire for a man you barely even had any conversations with, and you’ve dished out all your advice and warnings having never founded or a led a church on any conceivable level. This shows empirically that you’re both filled with pride AND hate while simultaneously caught up in a savior’s complex the likes of which I’ve never seen before.”

    Calling Suzanne a liar: “Suzanne said that my dad asked about her and her current boyfriend’s sexual positions, but she didn’t have a boyfriend when she met my dad and she and John did not have sex until they were married. Know how I know that? Because Suzanne used to tease John about their wedding night. See John was a virgin. And up until they first had sex he thought women got pregnant through their belly button. I actually always found that very endearing about John and his commitment to sexual Integrity before marriage. Anyone care to unravel this lie?”

    Suggesting Suzanne is mentally ill” “See either Suzanne thinks we’re to stupid to catch these things, or she’s struggling mentally much more than any of you realize – which one is worse?”

    To me when I quoted something his dad said to Terry and I at our last private meeting. Jeromy was not present.: “Another fat stinking lie Linda. My goodness. There’s enough (Ad nauseam) lies from you, just in this website, about my father, to fill a volume of defamation lawsuits. This is so fantastical and so disgusting I don’t know whether to laugh or weep but it’s now your MO.”

    Claiming the victims are lying: “Speaking of truth, I know Suzanne, Natalie and Loey are lying not just because I know my dad so well, but because I actually know the other half of THEIR stories.”

    Claiming Suzanne is lying: “Of course I’m saying she’s lying. I’ve been saying that this whole time.”

    Claiming Natalie wasn’t abused and also mentioning her “failings”: “Watching – I know Natalie wasn’t abused just from reading her blog. She’s redefined “abuse” to include years of “subtle” spiritual abuse and never talks about her own failings.”

    Reply
  7. Marvelous

    This is so interesting..According to this last post Linda D and Rebel in a Good Way ( RebelGW) are the same person on the Decommissioned forum. This helps to explain a lot of things. Thank you for your time and decades of posts. You two ( I mean one haha) have done such important work.

    Reply
    1. Huldah

      Actually, Rebel was quoting Linda, but neglected to use quotation marks. They’re not the same person.

      Reply
      1. Rebel GW

        Yes, I apologize for the lack of clarity. Linda had done such a good job summarizing Jeromy Darling’s intimidation of women, victims, and their supporters that I just wanted to share what she had compiled. I linked to her comment directly and then copied the text of it it paste here. This has confused many people and I realize there is a better way I could have conveyed this information.

        I wanted to point out that Lindsey’s defense of Mark Darling using the character of his children actually supports the idea of Mark as an abusive individual as he seems to have modeled that for his son. Mark’s other children have conducted themselves in a much more respectful manner, but Jeromy’s aggression was effective in silencing some people. Not because they weren’t telling the truth, but because he is an intimidating individual, threatening to gather his “army.” Most victims don’t have “armies.”

        To clarify, I am not Linda, but I agree that her effort on the DeComm forum have been helpful to many! I am on the forum as Rebel in a Good Way (a title given to me by a mysogynist pastor)

        Reply
  8. No longer a victim but a survivor

    Two things – 1)Bruce your comment in a reply to Lindsey about the “assistant” pastor knowing about allegations from other women is factually incorrect – the pastor in question, Mark Bowen was actually the Chairman of the Board (e.g., the highest ranking pastor in the church) at the time this occurred and until this past July when he stepped down from the Chairman’s role (but Mark Bowen remains as senior pastor at the Lakeville, MN location of this church, and I agree with you – he should not be in that role either).

    2) Because many of Mark’s supporters like Lindsey and Marvelous have been questioning the decision, the pastors at Evergreen (Mark’s former colleagues) put out a statement concurring with the Board’s decision to rescind Mark Darling’s ordination. As this will likely soon disappear from the church website, I think it should be memorialized here, the summary of which is, in my words, they find him to be an unrepentant liar.

    Statement regarding the rescinding of Mark Darling’s ordination

    Reason for publishing this statement. According to 1 Timothy 5:20, impartial,
    public reproof of a pastor who has lost his qualification for ordination is as
    important for the health of the local church as the impartial, public
    celebration that occurs when a pastor is first recognized as being qualified for
    ordination. What follows is an impartial, public reprimand of Mark by fellow
    Evergreen pastors. It is a necessary step for the church to make sense of the
    rescinding of Mark’s ordination.

    Question: “Do Evergreen pastors agree with the rescinding of Mark Darling’s
    ordination?”
    Yes. After examining the evidence of the investigation, the Board of Trustees
    [BOT] decided to rescind Mark Darling’s ordination. While this is a serious
    consequence of Mark’s misconduct, it is also coupled with a pathway back to
    ordination. The path to restoration offered to Mark acknowledges that the
    misconduct was not so serious that full restoration was not possible.
    Regrettably, he has declined this course of action and has chosen to resign.

    Allegations of “physical sexual abuse” against Mark Darling, and “cover up” and
    the offer of “hush money” against Evergreen Church – allegations first made in
    January of 2018, on social media, by Suzanne van Dyck – were NOT found valid by
    the investigator. These allegations DO NOT factor into the rescinding of Mark
    Darling’s ordination by the EC Board of Trustees.

    EC pastors do, however, agree with the EC BOT decision to rescind Mark Darling’s
    ordination for a combination of the following reasons.

    Meeting with female congregants. Since Evergreen’s inception, it’s pastors
    have held to a verbal code of conduct of not meeting alone with female
    congregants. “Alone” means an intentionally private setting; without a 3rd
    party present, or without other known persons nearby and easily accessible.
    Credible female witnesses came forward in the investigation and testified Mark
    Darling met with them alone, prior to 2001. Beyond the investigation, there
    have been additional women and current attenders who have claimed to have met
    with Mark in an intentionally private setting.
    Inappropriate conversation. Credible female witnesses came forward in the
    investigation and testified Mark Darling spoke with them about sexual subject
    matters, in private, prior to 2001.
    Comprehensive denial. In conversation with fellow Evergreen pastors since the
    start of this investigation, Mark Darling categorically denies ever having met
    alone with adult female congregants, or ever having had inappropriate private
    conversations regarding sexual subject matter with adult female congregants.
    Credibility. Based upon all of the evidence, the investigator found that
    “Mark Darling, while holding a position of authority, engaged in inappropriate
    conduct”. The BOT further observed that this conduct included spending time
    alone with women in private settings, and inappropriate conversations of a
    sexual nature with women. Evergreen pastors believe the findings of the
    investigator and the determinations of the Board are reliable and trustworthy.
    EC pastors therefore support the rescinding of Mark’s ordination by the EC
    BOT, on the basis of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. Specifically, the
    violations are:
    “above reproach” Defined as “without obvious defect that discredits or
    undermines trust.”
    “good reputation with outsiders” Defined as “viewed by persons outside of
    the congregation (at least in terms of character and integrity) as being
    worthy of respect or imitation.”
    Note: Mark’s behavior also falls short of the ethical directive for pastoral
    conduct given in 1 Timothy 5:2, “treat younger women with all purity, as
    your sisters”.

    Sincerely in Christ,
    Mark Bowen, Brent Knox and Doug Patterson, on behalf of the Evergreen pastoral
    team

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      The church’s official statement says Bowen was a pastor in 2001. In various articles and statements he is called a founder, chairman of the board, and a pastor.

      Reply
      1. No longer a victim but a survivor

        Hey Bruce – this line below in quotes, included in the original BOT report out from ECC in early July confirms Mark Bowen was Board Chair in 2001, which makes his behavior in concealing the allegations against Mark Bowen more egregious as he was Mark Darling’s direct supervisor and leader of the Board he concealed Mark Darling’s behavior from.

        ” In 2001, apart from Mark Bowen (Chair of the EC BOT), the other members of the EC BOT were not aware of the concerns raised by Suzanne van Dyck and these othe women regarding Mark Darling’s conduct, and were not informed of the concerns.)”

        Reply

Leave a Comment

You have to agree to the comment policy.